Who thinks it would be a good idea to create a new mailling list specificially for updates of domestic peering policy and some bgp discussion that might be a little off-topic for this list? Every ISP seems to be running it's own distribution list for sending out filter list updates, and some of you might have noticed the Xtra list being hijacked for discussion the other day (snicker). Also, I don't mind hosting the list. Cheers. --- James Tyson Moebius Systems Ltd http://www.moebius.co.nz/ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, James Tyson wrote:
Who thinks it would be a good idea to create a new mailling list specificially for updates of domestic peering policy and some bgp discussion that might be a little off-topic for this list?
I'd encourage those of you who are interested in this topic to read RFC 2650 (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2650.txt) and start working to using RPSL for this task. It seems really strange to have filter lists (in proprietary format) flying around to achieve this. Registering your routes in the IRR (www.irr.net) and then using a mailing list to say "we've changed our details, see the registry" looks like the way to go. APNIC have a pilot service running which ISPs from this region can use.
Every ISP seems to be running it's own distribution list for sending out filter list updates, and some of you might have noticed the Xtra list being hijacked for discussion the other day (snicker).
Also, I don't mind hosting the list.
I think a list is a good idea but let's not try to invent a wheel that already exists. andy - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
I'd encourage those of you who are interested in this topic to read RFC 2650 (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2650.txt) and start working to using RPSL for this task. It seems really strange to have filter lists (in proprietary format) flying around to achieve this.
Registering your routes in the IRR (www.irr.net) and then using a mailing list to say "we've changed our details, see the registry" looks like the way to go. APNIC have a pilot service running which ISPs from this region can use.
Guh. Sounds techinogical. Bob, have you rotated the corn? Cheers. --- James Tyson Moebius Systems Ltd http://www.moebius.co.nz/ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:25:19AM +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, James Tyson wrote:
Who thinks it would be a good idea to create a new mailling list specificially for updates of domestic peering policy and some bgp discussion that might be a little off-topic for this list?
I'd encourage those of you who are interested in this topic to read RFC 2650 (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2650.txt) and start working to using RPSL for this task. It seems really strange to have filter lists (in proprietary format) flying around to achieve this.
The data in the RADB (and friends) is variable, though; to some extent the RADB only becomes optimally useful if *everybody* uses it, and so long as there are people who don't any automated filter construction always needs to be augmented by fallible humans sending bits of mail around the place. One alternative a number of large networks I know of have started putting in place is custom maximum-prefix limits for peers. The maximum-prefix limits protect against leaks quite effectively by tearing down sessions and holding them down once the specified number of prefixes received has exceeded a threshold. This is much cheaper to configure, operate and generally manage, and protects against leaks about as well as explicit prefix filters. It doesn't protect against route theft, but I'm not convinced the IRR protects against route theft particularly well, either. The LINX used to be awash with mail from peers announcing prefix filter changes. A couple of people there postulated that the coordinated reconfigurations of routers out of maintenance window synchronised by mail to the list saying "change my filters" was a dangerous thing, and could be responsible for systematic cross-provider failure. I never heard of anybody correlating any performance data with prefix-update mail to the list, but it was an interesting theory. Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
The LINX used to be awash with mail from peers announcing prefix filter changes. A couple of people there postulated that the coordinated reconfigurations of routers out of maintenance window synchronised by mail to the list saying "change my filters" was a dangerous thing, and could be responsible for systematic cross-provider failure. I never heard of anybody correlating any performance data with prefix-update mail to the list, but it was an interesting theory.
The LINX members seem to mostly use max-prefix settings - we (5378) use them with all peers, and it does stop us from getting clobbered by route leaks. As for filters, we only filter out our own internal routes being received from peers. Brendan -- Brendan Black UK mobile: +44 7941 647890 Linux User# 44680 "You know, it's at times like this when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young!" "Why, what did she tell you?" "I don't know, I didn't listen!" -- Douglas Adams, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (4)
-
Andy Linton -
Brendan Black -
James Tyson -
Joe Abley